SHAM031/SHAM201 - Cannibal Holocaust: The BBFC Advice & Decision

[Daemonia]

No offence, but to all the people who state that they would prefer to see an animal-cruelty free version of Cannibal Holocaust is like asking for a violence-free Fulci film. No-one likes animal cruelty, but it IS part and parcel of what makes films like Cannibal Holocaust so notorious and extreme. If you really can't handle it, then stay away altogether, you have no business going near this film at all. You'd all go mad if Shameless or Arrow released a Fulci movie with all the gore taken out, as the gore is what has, initially, given those films their reputation and were highly sought after in their uncut form during the dark days of Ferman. What if Argento went back to Suspiria and cut out all the violent set pieces - would any of you call that a 'definitive' edit? Similarly with Cannibal Holocaust, the animal violence is what gave it its notorious reputation and labelled as 'the film that goes all the way'. To cut the animal violence turns it into 'the film that goes some of the way'.

Now, I'm not an advocate of animal cruelty, but it's undeniably a part of trhe film's fabric. It's what gives it that 'What the...?' factor and blurs the lines between fact and fiction and disorientates the viewer into questioning everything they're seeing. It's a horrible device to use, but very effective nonetheless.

However, if this does only get 14 secs of cuts, it truly will be a landmark moment in BBFC history and I applaud Shameless for pushing the envelope that little bit further. Will I get a copy? Of course, I'm curious to see Deodato's revised edit. But definitive? Please. The film in its original, uncut form is the definitive version. And it's strange, as I've said elsewhere, that the animal violence is frowned upon and yet no-one seems at all bothered by the Road To Hell sequence that features real human death. Some funny standards there, I think. Don't hurt the animals, but the execution of human beings is fine. Odd.

Just my opinions, as always...

[Sarah@Cult Labs]

I think we've already been over this exact same argument in the other thread for this release so I'd rather not dredge it up again if you don't mind.

Can we leave this thread for discussion of the BBFC's advice and Shameless's decision to release both versions of the film please?

Not saying don't discuss the animal cruelty as it's part of the BBFC's advice, but not people's decisions as to whether they want to watch it or not which is a personal choice as I'm sure we can appreciate.

Sent from my HTC Tattoo using Tapatalk

[Sarah@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by antmumford

Sarah? I'm assuming the 2 versions will be in the same release but on seperate discs right?

Yep, they'll be on the same release.

As for why the turtle would remain, as some have been asking, I think the BBFC has decided it is "humane" as the head is removed first and so its movements after that are motor reflexes. So, while it looks vile, the turtle isn't in any pain. Plus they have taken into account the fact that it was eaten by the cast, crew and locals.

This is as much as I understand about the advice at any rate!



Sent from my HTC Tattoo using Tapatalk

[buggenhagen]

Originally Posted by bigandya

I'll believe it when I see it. The turtle death is the most protracted, vile scene of animal cruelty in the entire film! No way could it be described as quick, clean or humane.

As has already been stated, this was not a formal classification by the BBFC - thats still to come. I will be amazed if the turtle scene is left intact.

As Sarah just mentioned the head is severed cleanly right at the start of the scene and all you're seeing after that is the motor reflex - it's not nice but the common understanding is that the suffering would be minimal. If you had your head cleanly sliced off in an instant you'd twitch around too but you would be dead instantly. If they had slowly sawn the head off, or cut into the shell without decapitating the turtle then that would have been tortuous for the thing. The muskrat scene is exactly that - a slow, botched and painful death.

As for the Last Road To Hell footage, that's clearly pre-existing documentary footage that wasn't shot specifically for the sake of the production. That stuff has been uncut in the UK for a while now though hasn't it? (I've never seen a cut copy so can't be certain!)

I've said it before but I don't really see the point of these cruelty cuts these days - animal cruelty in films is largely a thing of the past now and is (rightly) unacceptable in modern films but cutting this stuff now isn't going to bring the original animal back is it?

Still, this whole debate is pretty interesting and I'm keen to see exactly what Deodato does when he re-edits the film.

[Victhulhu]

Wow, great news, and regardless of if there's any footage missing, I'll definitely be picking this up due to the fact that it's finally on BluRay!

[Pete]

Originally Posted by stefanmetal

What about the last road to hell sequence, surely that would be cut?

They passed that last time around. Some (not all) of it is faked anyway, if you look at the behind the scenes gallery on the Grindhouse disc there are photo's of them filming one of the executions.


Also, as horrible as the turle scene is, it's beheaded as soon as they pull it out of the water.

[robertzombie]

That is absolutely fantastic news regarding the BBFC's advice. I was deliberating on whether or not to buy this edition but I'll certainly be getting it now to see what Deodato does with his film and also to see the new HD transfer (I can live without the muskrat scene).

Unfortunately it puts me personally in a bit of a pickle as I've just written an analysis of the cuts imposed on the VIPCO edition for my undergrad dissertation!

Although, as a result of delving into the BBFC's inner workings for my research I thought perhaps I could answer a few things and raise one question.

Firstly, the turtle is killed instantly so I think that explains why it is considered to be "more humane" than the muskrat which obviously suffers a great deal. But I do question the heavy-handedness deployed by the actors when hauling the turtle from the water. I don't know how much a turtle 'feels' but the way they drag it out of the water could be interpreted as "cruel".

Also, with regard to The Last Road To Hell. It's in the VIPCO edition in its entirety and I believe the reason for this is that it wasn't filmed specifically for the purpose of the film. Indeed, if it were it would make Cannibal Holocaust a genuine "snuff" film and we probably wouldn't be sitting here getting all excited about its impending HD release!


The one question I do have is, assuming all the animal 'cruelty' gets passed uncut (with the exception of the muskrat), where does this place the BBFC with regards to The Cinematograph Films (Animals) Act 1937? The act is designed to:

Prohibit the exhibition or distribution of cinematograph films in connection with the production of which suffering may have been caused to animals [and states that]… No person shall exhibit to the public, or supply to any person for public exhibition (whether by him or by another person), any cinematograph film (whether produced in Great Britain or elsewhere) if in connection with the production of the film any scene represented in the film was organised or directed in such a way as to involve the cruel infliction of pain or terror on any animal or the cruel goading of any animal to fury.

The BBFC are required by law to follow this act, and so it would appear that they are now to be reinterpreting that law and this decision (assuming all goes through as planned) will certainly set a new precedent with regards to animal death in film. Obviously, the film has not changed, the animals are still killed in the same way that they were ten years ago when VIPCO released their butchered edition. The key terms in that outline of the act are "suffering" and "cruel infliction of pain or terror". Whilst the turtle and the monkey die immediately through decapitation would one not still consider such form of death "cruel"? Also, let us not forget that the pig is kicked (cruel?) and then shot in the stomach. It appears to die immediately but (I don't have the scene to hand so this is from memory) I think the cut away is pretty quick, can we be sure that the animal did not suffer as a result of the bullet wound?


Having said all of that, I am certainly very glad that the BBFC have thoroughly revised their opinions on Cannibal Holocaust since the last time they reviewed the film. Whilst I'm not an advocate of animal cruelty it is slightly disappointing that we still, as adults, are not "permitted" to see the full version of the film in this country, but I think the fact that Shameless are to be releasing the film in HD and also with the added bonus of a new Deodato cut makes up for all of that! If I've interpreted the first post correctly it seems to me that Deodato will be removing more of the animal cruelty than is BBFC necessary. I wonder how he will alter the musical score in order to maintain continuity.


EDIT: I've just watched the muskrat scene (uncut EC and cut VIPCO). I've never actually paid close attention to it before but the little creature most definitely suffers the most out of all the animals in terms of pre-death experience. It's completely removed from the VIPCO edition but thankfully there's no continuity issues because the death takes place in one cut without any soundtrack. So assuming it is cut the same way as VIPCO did it all should be fine

[Daemonia]

Originally Posted by Sarah@Cult Labs

I think we've already been over this exact same argument in the other thread for this release so I'd rather not dredge it up again if you don't mind.

Can we leave this thread for discussion of the BBFC's advice and Shameless's decision to release both versions of the film please?

Not saying don't discuss the animal cruelty as it's part of the BBFC's advice, but not people's decisions as to whether they want to watch it or not which is a personal choice as I'm sure we can appreciate.

Sent from my HTC Tattoo using Tapatalk

I really didn't think I was 'dredging' anything up, merely commenting on the animal violence, which relates directly to the recent BBFC advice regarding the film. But, I apologise anyway. For what, I'm not exactly sure, but I'm apologising anyway.

My point really was this: I don't like films like Faces of Death and that ilk, I really don't like the subject matter at all, so I avoid it. At the same time, I wouldn't expect those films to be censored to make them more palatable to me. They are what they are and so I don't watch them. The same applies to Cannibal Holocaust - it is what it is, if you don't like it, don't watch it. But why should it be censored to make it more platable for you? That was my only point.

Like I say, I applaud Shameless for taking the brave step of releasing this notorious film and I am definitely interested in seeing Deodato's revised edit. Also, if the BBFC do only ask for 14 secs of cuts, then that will truly be a landmark moment.

Anyway....I'll say no more on the matter....for now.

[mr 420]

I'm away for a few days and I miss this! This is amazing news for Shameless, this site and it's community and horror fans in general (espically in the Uk where we have only been allowed truncated prints). I doff my hat to everybody who have had a hand in this and I'm sure I'm only one of many when I say that this will be a first day of release essential purchase, although I will be doing some of my own self censorship (i.e. closing my eyes) when the animal scenes comes up as I'm too much of an animal lover to even remotely want to see them.

[Sarah@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Daemonia

I really didn't think I was 'dredging' anything up, merely commenting on the animal violence, which relates directly to the recent BBFC advice regarding the film. But, I apologise anyway. For what, I'm not exactly sure, but I'm apologising anyway.

I wasn't looking for an apology but thank you anyway. Perhaps I phrased what I said badly. All I meant was that this exact same point (with regards to if people don't like it then they shouldn't watch the film) has been made on the other Cannibal Holocaust thread and I don't see any point in posting it again on this thread. Especially as, if I remember rightly, it's a point that does seem to get quite a few people's backs up.

At the end of the day, it's a personal choice of what people want to watch. If people want to steer clear of the film altogether in protest of the animal cruelty then that's up to them. If people want to watch the film fully uncut, that's their choice. And if people want to experience the film without the animal cruelty then that's no one's business but their own. (I personally have an uncut version but I fast forward or shut my eyes through the animal scenes.)

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the film should be cut to cater for their tastes, but the fact is that this new edit shall be in existence soon so why shouldn't the people who do want an animal-cruelty-free version be happy about that? After all, as many keep saying, the fully uncut version is easy enough to get hold of for those who want that.

Basically, I'm all for everyone having their own opinion and not being penalised for it. And for everyone to enjoy the film in the way they want to enjoy it.

Although preferably not while munching on a turtle sandwich...

That would be wrong...